2023:MHC:3111

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

Reserved on: 24.02.2023

Pronounced on: 21.06.2023

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH

WP.No.23868 of 2012 and

MP.No.1 of 2013

S.Geetha         … Petitioner

Vs

1.The Union of India,

Rep by its Secretary to Government,    Department of Revenue & Intelligence,    New Delhi.

2.The Director,

Directorate of Revenue Intelligence,

Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue)

Government of India,

7^th Floor, D-Block,

Indraprasatha Bhawan,    Indraprasatha Estate,    New Delhi.

3.Senior Intelligence Officer,

Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue)

O/o, Director of Revenue Intelligence,    No.25, Gopala Krishna (Iyer) Road    T.Nagar, Chennai-600 017.

4.The Government of Tamilnadu

Rep by Secretary to Government,

Public (Law & order-E) Department,

Secretariat, Chennai-9.       … Respondents

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 to 3 to pay compensation of Rs.50,00,000/- (Rupees Fifty Lakhs only) to the petitioner for the custodial death of Sathyanarayanan and take suitable action in pursuant to the recommendations made by the 4^th respondent in his letter No.2854/L and OE/2008-2, dated 18.02.2009.

For Petitioner	:  Mr.Mohan, Senior Counsel    for Mr.M.S.Palaniswamy
For Respondents	:  Mr.R.Sankaranarayanan,    Additional Solicitor General assisted by Mr.V.Sundareswaran (for R1 to R3) Senior Panel Counsel Mr.P.Kumaresan, Additional Advocate General    assisted by Mr.Alagu Goutham (for R4) Government Advocate    Mr.Niranjan Rajagopalan for Mr.Ravichandran (in Crl.OP.11024/2006)

O R D E R

The petitioner has filed this Writ Petition arraying Secretary to Department of Revenue & Intelligence (DRI)/R1, Director, DRI/R2, Senior Intelligence officer, DRI/R3 and the Secretary to Government, Public Law and Order, Government of Tamil Nadu/R4, as respondents.

2. The submissions in support of her prayer for mandamus directing R1 to R3 to pay compensation of a sum of Rs.50.00 lakhs for the custodial death of her husband and suitable action to be taken pursuant to the recommendations of R4 in letter dated 18.02.2009, are as follows:

• Her husband was employed as Manager (sundry) in V.R.Marketing

(M) SDNBHN, having its head office in Malaysia.

• Investigation was initiated by R3 under the provisions of the

Customs Act, 1962 (in short ‘Act’).

• The office premises of the petitioner’s husband was subjected to search on 21.04.2006.
• Summons was issued pursuant to that investigation to the petitioner’s husband directing his appearance on 21.04.2006 at 20:45 hrs. On that day, the petitioner states that her husband was taken into custody without any basis and illegally detained in the office of R3.
• He was brought to the petitioner’s house at No.9E, New Street,

Ayyavoo      Colony, Aminjikarai, Chennai       (‘residential premises’/’residential premises in question’) at about 4.30 p.m. on 22.04.2006 for conduct of search of the residential premises by the officers.  She alleges that there was no warrant authorising the search.

• Herself, the parents of her husband and his brother-in-law were present when the petitioner’s husband and the officers entered the house.
• The petitioner resides in a flat on the second floor of the building, above which was an open terrace.
• The searched party comprising eight persons searched the entirety of the house. They are accused of having manhandled the petitioner’s husband and abusing him. Thereafter and without any provocation, the petitioner would allege that the officers, including R3, took her husband to the open terrace and physically assaulted him.
• An officer by name Mr.Chandrasekar then hit her husband in the stomach, driving him to the parapet wall of the terrace and over it. Her husband fell down from the third floor and was found dead when the petitioner rushed down the stairs along with his parents.
• The entire search party went away from the scene of occurrence without further ado.
  3. Various submissions have been made touching upon the veracity of the proceedings under the Act itself. The petitioner alleges that the procedure followed was improper and no notices/authorization or summons as required under the Statute or Rules were issued.
  4. According to the petitioner, her husband was in the custody of the officers at all times and could not have gone to the terrace himself to commit suicide, which is the defence of the respondents. The only reason why he went to the third floor was at the instance of the respondents who wanted to abuse him unseen by other eyes.
  5. She also would lament the inhuman attitude of the officers who after having seen her husband’s fall to his death went away without even waiting to offer medical help or assistance in any way. This itself, according to her, points to their guilt.
  6. A complaint was filed on behalf of R3 by one Mr.R.Arunsingh, Senior

Vigilance Officer, on 22.04.2006 at 7.00 p.m. before the Aminjikarai Police Station.  That complaint refers only to the presence of the parents of her husband and it does not refer to her presence.  According to the petitioner, contradictory statements have been made by the officers which would establish that they are the cause of his death.

7. The complaint/FIR does not contain a proper explanation as to how her husband went to the terrace and how his parents, who were initially stated to have followed him upstairs, were available at the scene of the fall to engage an auto to move him to the hospital.
8. The petitioner also filed a complaint before K3 Aminjikarai Police Station on the same day under CSRNO/28/K3PS/06. She does not however refer to the same in the writ affidavit but, on the other hand has disavowed the contents of that complaint in her affidavit dated 29.08.2012. She states therein that the contents of that complaint were incorrect and that she was asked to merely affix her signature on a complaint that had been drafted by the Senior Vigilance Officer.
9. An inquest was held in the presence of Panchayatdhars on 23.04.2006. The Panchayatdhars had held unanimously that the cause of death was physical and mental torture by the officers of the Customs Department and not suicide.
10. Since the demise of her husband occurred while in the course of search of the premises, the matter was referred to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate and District Backward Classes and Minority Welfare Officer, Chennai for enquiry forwarded to the Collector and thereafter to R4. The enquiry conducted under Section 151 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short ‘Cr.P.C.’) gave an entirely different version which militated against the version of the incident as set out by the authorities.
11. R4, vide communication dated 18.02.2009, agreed with the report of the Enquiry Authority and the District Collector that applicable guidelines and proper procedure had not been followed by the DRI officials while conducting the raid at the premises of the petitioner’s husband and they were, hence, responsible for contributory negligence in his demise.
12. Departmental action was recommended to be initiated against the following DRI officials, who were part of the team that had conducted the search:
13. R.Arun Singh (Senior Vigilance Officer)
14. Susan Vargesee (Senior Vigilance Officer)
15. Nalini Rajan (Intelligence Officer)
16. Sukumar Suresh (Intelligence Officer)
17. Ramakrishnan (Intelligence Officer)
18. Girish (Intelligence Officer)
19. Chandrasekar (Intelligence Officer)
20. Ram (Intelligence Officer)
21. Despite the specific recommendation of R4, R2 has not taken effective action as against the officers, the petitioner alleges. In the course of hearing and on a specific query raised by the Court, R1 to R3 have confirmed that an enquiry was initiated based on the recommendations of R4 where, by proceedings dated 26.05.2009 the officers were found to have been blameless and the enquiry closed along those lines.
22. In conclusion, in the writ affidavit, the petitioner would state that she had witnessed the entire occurrence and swears to the position that it was R3 and the officers of the DRI who had tortured her husband, Intelligence officer Chandrasekar being responsible for kicking him over the parapet wall. She relies on the report of the Panchayatdhars and the enquiry conducted by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, that, she states, is in support of what she witnessed.
23. She relies on the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Kabali @ Kabalesswaran v. State of Tamil Nadu and others [2006-3-L.W. 81], which concluded with the Division Bench finding negligence on the part of the Police officials in that case and directing compensation to be paid.
24. Per contra, the respondents would vehemently deny any involvement in the demise of the petitioner’s husband. They do admit to investigation having been conducted under the applicable provisions of the Act.  However, according to them, those investigations and other enquiries had been conducted strictly in line with the provisions of the Act.
25. Notices and summons had been issued as required. Search had beenconducted after proper warrant of authorization having been issued.  There was thus no merit in the allegations that the actions had been unsupported by relevant provisions of the Act. The respondents were directed to produce the files to establish that proceedings had been conducted in line with the stipulations under the Act and applicable Rules and Regulations.
26. The respondents have filed a compilation dated 11.04.2022 containing documents from S.Nos.4 to 10 being (i) copy of warrant of search under Section 105 of the Act (ii) Summons dated 21.04.2006 issued under Section 108 of the Act to the petitioner’s husband directing his attendance at

20:45 hrs at the office of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, No.25, Gopalakrishna (Iyer) Road, T.Nagar, Chennai – 17 (iii) Seizure Mahazar dated

21.04.2006 (iv) Statement of petitioner’s husband dated 21.04.2006 (v) Summons dated 21.04.2006 issued under Section 108 of the Act to the petitioner’s husband directing his appearance on 22.04.2006 at 10.00 a.m. at the office of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, No.25, Gopalakrishna (Iyer) Road, T.Nagar, Chennai – 17 (vi) Warrant of search dated 22.04.2006 of the residential premises in question, issued under Section 105 of the Act vii)

Mahazar of witness dated 22.04.2006.

19. The above documents are stated to form part of the official recordsand there is no avenue to suspect the same in any way. The petitioner has also not pointed out any lacunae or error in the documents filed. Thus, on this score, this Court concludes that there is no infirmity as far as the procedure followed in the conduct of investigation proceedings barring the events leading to the unfortunate demise of the petitioner’s husband.
20. I hasten to add that it is quite another matter as to whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation or whether enquiry is to be ordered as against the officials of the DRI as prayed for and these questions will be considered shortly.
21. It is the defence of the respondents that in the course of enquiry on 22.04.2006, the petitioner’s husband, midway through the investigation, ran up the stairs to the open terrace. He was followed by his parents.  Events after this point are a little unclear as to whether any officer of the search team went upstairs in his pursuit or remained where they were.
22. While it is the petitioner’s version that her husband was taken upstairs at the instance of the officer and that some of the officers did follow him to the terrace, the FIR records the version of the respondents that the officer remained in the searched premises and did not follow him. Upon hearing a thud and some commotion, the officers proceeded downstairs to the compound.
23. After ascertaining that the petitioner’s husband had fallen to his death, the search party left the proceedings. Thus the respondents would disavow any involvement in the demise of the petitioner’s husband stating categorically that he had chosen to commit suicide rather that cooperate in the investigation.
24. They however deny that they had been responsible for his decision as the proceedings initiated were scrupulously in line with the statutory provisions. There was no detention of the petitioner’s husband as alleged.  He had not responded to the summons on 21.04.2006 and thus the question of detention does not arise at all.  On 22.04.2006, he had come to their office and the team had asked him to accompany them for the search of his residential premises. There had been no force applied, let alone excess of force and hence they cannot be held responsible for his demise.
25. The Revenue relies on the judgment of the three Judges of the

Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sube Singh v. State of Haryana and others [(2006) 3 SCC 178] and it is their submission that the award of compensation can be considered only in cases where it is incontrovertible that there has been custodial death or torture. In the present case, this burden of proof has not been discharged by the petitioner and hence the request must not be considered favourably.

26. Pending Writ Petition, there is one development which has been argued in detail by both sides. The petitioner is stated to have moved a Criminal Original Petition bearing No.11024 of 2006 seeking a direction under

Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. to the first respondent, the Inspector of Police, K3, Aminjikarai Police Station to register a case based on her complaint dated 22.04.2006, investigate the same and file a final report.

27. That Crl.O.P. came to be closed on 12.06.2006, this Court recording that the learned counsel for the petitioner had made an endorsement that the petitioner was withdrawing the petition. The counsel, as per order dated 12.06.2006 was one Mr.B.Kumarasamy. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner had never instructed any Advocate to file a Criminal Original Petition.  Thus, by order dated 16.09.2022, my predecessor had directed thus:

Issue notice to Mr.B.Kumarasamy, the learned counsel appeared on behalf of the petitioner in Crl.O.P.No.11024 of 2006 returnable on 28.09.2022.

2.The additional affidavit filed by the petitioner is taken on record.

3.The Registry is directed to print the name of the State Public Prosecutor. Post the matter on 28.09.2022.

Order dated 28.09.2022

Mr.B..Kumarasamy, learned counsel who originally filed the Criminal Original Petition on behalf of the petitioner present and he submitted that he has filed petition on the instruction of one Advocate M.Ravichandran. The Crl.O.P has been filed for a direction to register a complaint given by the Writ Petitioner. Since the Police has already registered the FIR based on the report, the Criminal Original Petition has been withdrawn and his statement is recorded to that effect counsel is required to file an affidavit.

2.Issue summons to the Advocate M.Ravichandran.

3.Post on 18.10.2022. In the meanwhile, learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) is directed to file all the certified copies relating to the investigation conducted in the case in the next date of hearing.

28. Kumarasamy has filed an affidavit dated 18.10.2022, after receipt of notice from this Court. According to him, it was one Mr.M.Ravichandran, a member of this Bar, upon whose instructions, the Criminal Original Petition was filed based on the complaint of the petitioner dated 22.04.2006.  He would state that the petition had been prepared by him and handed over to M.Ravichandran on 25.04.2006.  He thereafter made a mention before the concerned Court and obtained a slip for the hearing on 26.04.2006.
29. The following parties were arrayed as respondents: (i) State rep. by, The Inspector of Police, K3 Aminjikarai Police Station, Chennai, (ii) Chandrasekaran, Senior Intelligence Officer, Department of Revenue Intelligence, Chennai. (iii)J.Balakrishnan, Assistant Director, Department of Revenue Intelligence, Chennai.
30. The Crl.O.P. was listed for admission on 26.04.2006 and notice was ordered to R1. The matter was listed thereafter on 12.06.2006.  On that day, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor brought to the notice of the Court that a case had been registered in Crl.O.P.No.409 of 2006 under Section 176 Cr.P.C. based upon the complaint by the Senior Intelligence Officer, DRI in respect of the very same incident.
31. It was thus that this Court, noting that a case had been registered for the same incident and that investigation was on-going, advised the learned counsel to withdraw the Crl.O.P. Thus, his junior, one Mr.R.Babu, made an endorsement for withdrawal and the Crl.O.P. was dismissed on 12.06.2006. He would confirm that he had never met the petitioner in person and that the entirety of the Crl.O.P. had been triggered only by the instructions given by Mr.Ravichandran.
32. The said Mr.Ravichandran has also filed affidavit dated 11.11.2022, pursuant to summons from this Court. In his affidavit, he states that the petitioner was well known to him for many years.  She had contacted him on

21.04.2006 around noon requesting assistance in regard to the customs matter. He was informed by her that her husband had been taken to their house with Mr.Chandrasekar and Mr.Balakrishnan, DRI officers.

33. While he was enroute to their house, he received a phone call informing him of the demise of the petitioner’s husband. He thereafter accompanied the petitioner to the police station and filed a complaint advising the Writ Petitioner that a Criminal Original Petition must be filed seeking direction for registration of the complaint. One discrepancy herein is that the phone call is stated to be on 21.04.2006 whereas the events in question leading to the demise of the petitioner’s husband took place on 22.04.2006.
34. Upon receipt of her instructions, he engaged Mr.Kumarasamy for taking necessary steps and pursued the filing of Crl.O.P. Thereafter, his version of events aligns with that of Mr.B.Kumarasamy in his affidavit. It is however the categoric statement of the petitioner under additional affidavit dated 16.09.2022 that she had never instructed Mr.Kumarasamy to take steps to file the Criminal Original Petition. She states that she does not know who Mr.B.Kumarasamy is and had never instructed him to file any petition on her behalf.
35. She has filed a separate counter affidavit in relation to the affidavitfiled by Mr.Ravichandran and denies knowledge of this person as well. She expressly states that she does not know him and thus the question of contacting him to state that her husband was taken into custody on 21.04.2006 does not

arise.

36. She denies that he had accompanied her to K3 Aminjikarai Police Station and that any advice had been given by him in regard to the legal steps to be taken by her. There is a discrepancy in this statement in so far as, in the

complaint                                      filed                                        on                               22.04.2006                                        by                                       the                                 Petitioner                                     under

C.S.R.No.28/28/K3PS/06, the Petitioner has mentioned the presence of  two persons with her, S.Thamizharasan and Ravichandran.

37. She also disavows the contents of the complaint stated to have been filed by her before the police station on 22.04.2006 which is the reason why perhaps the complaint does not figure as part of the writ affidavit at all. She agrees that the complaint has been signed by her.  However, the contents, she states, were the version of the police officials and she merely and hastily signed the same.  She states that she is not aware of the stage of that complaint.  This aspect of the matter has cast a pall over the version of events as projected by the petitioner.
38. The Court is cognisant of the fact that in matters involving complexand torturous facts such as these, the persons involved would be in a great deal of confusion, uncertainty, grief and panic. One could thus be expected to be faced with conflicting statements made to different persons and different versions of events emanating from various parties that would have to be reconciled to arrive at the truth, or what one believes, is the truth.
39. As regards the filing the Crl.O.P., the petitioner would state that the records indicate that the Crl.O.P. was filed on 25.04.2006, three days after the demise of her husband and she was in no frame of mind to contemplate litigation at that time. She denies her signatures in the vakalatnama and in the Criminal Original Petition and reiterates that she has filed no cases apart from the present Writ Petition and complaints/representations made to other authorities seeking compensation. In fine, she states that the facts as relating to the Crl.O.P. casts ‘heavy doubt on the acts of the respondents’.
40. Much has been made of this matter and, in my view, this peculiar sequence of events provides some guidance as to the conduct of the parties, though the Crl.O.P. having been dismissed as withdrawn, might only have limited bearing on the adjudication of the petitioner’s prayer.
41. It is the specific allegation of the respondents that the withdrawal ofthe Crl.O.P must be seen to be an indication that the petitioner did not intend to press any charges or pursue litigation as against them. They seek, in effect, to taint her conduct stating that she did not pursue her police compliant and chose instead, to withdraw the Crl.O.P. On the other hand, it is the petitioner’s allegation that the respondents have some connection to the Crl.O.P, going to the extent of alleging forgery of her signature.
42. Neither submission appeals. If really, the petitioner had filed the Crl.O.P. and withdrawn the same thereafter, there may have been any number of reasons for such withdrawal. In fact, the order in Crl.O.P records that the closure was on account of another complaint filed by the officer relating to the same incident. This cannot lead to any adverse conclusion drawn as against the petitioner.
43. Then again, if indeed the respondents were responsible for the death of her husband, it would be contra to their interests to have filed the Crl.O.P seeking registration of the petitioner’s complaint. Thus no motive can be attributed to the respondent as well in the filing of the Crl.O.P under false pretences and braving the grave repercussions of the same.
44. In order to satisfy myself, the records of the Crl.O.P were called forand the signatures therein compared with those in this writ affidavit. It is true that there is no stroke to stroke match available and even to the untrained eye, there are some differences that are visible.
45. However, there is no need for this Court to delve further into this matter as the petitioner has not chosen to pursue the matter further by seeking to subject the signatures for forensic testing. On a balance I prefer to let this issue rest rather than distract the Court from ascertaining the true events of 22.04.2006. However, the discrepancies that it has brought to light, as noted in the preceding paragraphs, have weighed with me in the ultimate conclusion

arrived at.

46. Coming to the events of 22.04.2006 itself, the respondents have filed a compilation dated 11.04.2022, documents at S.Nos.1 to 3 dealing with the Criminal Original Petition, which issue has already been dealt with by me above and documents from S.Nos.4 to 10 relating to the procedure followed for investigation under the Act. These documents, touching upon the investigation conducted under the provisions of the Customs Act, reveal to me the trajectory of events.
47. The investigation commenced with search warrant dated 21.04.2006 in respect of the office premises of VR Marketing and summons directing the attendance of the petitioner’s husband on 21.04.2006 at 20:45 hours at the office of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, No.25, Gopalakrishna (Iyer) Road, T.Nagar, Chennai – 17. The proceedings continued with issue of summons dated 21.04.2006 directing attendance of the petitioner’s husband on 22.04.2006 at 10.00 a.m. at the office of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, No.25, Gopalakrishna (Iyer) Road, T.Nagar, Chennai – 17.
48. Thereafter, a warrant for search of his house on 22.04.2006 was issued and the presence of the officers in the residential premises on 22.04.2006 is supported by this search warrant. In support of the allegation that the petitioner’s husband was illegally detained between 21.04.2006 and 22.04.2006 in the custody of R3, in his office, the petitioner has referred to a phone call made by her husband to her at 8.00 p.m. stating that he was in the office of the officials and was being tortured.  There is no record or evidence produced to substantiate any such call having been received by the petitioner, such as phone records, and this statement has been specifically denied by the respondents.
49. As it is quite normal for investigation to continue beyond standard office hours, the allegation regarding illegal custody calls for some definite evidence/proof. The Court is conscious of the fact that in matters such as these, it is well nigh impossible for the complainant to have cast iron evidence in their possession to establish their version of events.
50. In the present case, there is no material at all available in support of the allegation of illegal detention and thus the Court must decide this allegation based on the circumstantial evidences. There is nothing to indicate compliance of the petitioner’s husband to the summons issued calling for his appearance on 21.04.06. Further, the petitioner does not refer to any attempt by her or the family to contact him over the phone or to reach him at the office premises of the respondents which would seem the likely reaction, particulary if the petitioner has, as she claims, received a phone call from her husband alleging torture.
51. She also does not refer to any statement of his at any other point of time to the effect that he was detained at the customs office. I am hence unable to accept the statement of the petitioner that her husband was detained in the custody of the customs officer between 21^st and 22^nd of April, 2006 and the submissions on this count are rejected.
52. The parents of the petitioner’s husband have filed a petition to implead themselves, which has been stoutly objected to by the respondents who state that the application is filed belatedly and that there is no substance in the same. This petition, though filed in 2013, has not been ordered till the final hearing of this Writ Petition and hence, at this distance in time and seeing as this order disposes the Writ Petition filed in 2012, I see no reason to order this implead petition.  Hence, the implead petition is dismissed.
53. What remains is to ascertain the cause of demise of the petitioner’s husband. For this, the events as stated by the various persons/authorities, the petitioner, the SIO in the FIR, the report of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate and District Backward Classes and Minorities Welfare Officer dated 12.12.2006 and the report of the District Collector dated 18.02.2009 must be reconciled to separate chaff from the grain and arrive at the possible/plausible sequence of events. The complaint filed by the petitioner reads thus:

CSRNO/28/K3PS/06

22.04.06 brd;id

mDg;g[eh; fPjh rj;aehuhazd;. 35. w/o. rj;aehuhzd;. No.9-E, New Street, mike;jfiu.

brd;id ? 29/

bgW[eh; cah;jpU/ fhty;Jiw Ma;thsh; mth;fs.; rl;lk; & xG’;F.

K-3. mike;jfiu fhty; epiyak;. mike;jfiu. brd;id ? 29/

ehd; fPjh rj;jpa ehuhazd; w/o. rj;jpaehuhazd; vGjpf; bfhLf;Fk; g[fhh; kD/ vd;Dila fzth; rj;jpa ehuhazd;

tP/Mh;/ khh;bflo;’; kw;Wk; Green Panel mYtyfj;jpy; 9?A, 3^rd floor, Alsa Mall, khz;oaj; nuhL vGk;g{h;. brd;id vd;w tpyhrj;jpy; knyrpahtpypUe;J MDF plywood board knyrpahtpypUe;J ,wf;Fkjp bra;a[k; mYtyfj;jpy; ,e;jpahtpy; brd;id mYtyf bghUg;ghsuhf cs;shh;/ mth;fs; vd; fzth; ,wf;Fkjp bra;a[k; midj;J bghUl;fSf;Fk; ,wf;Fkjp thp (Customs duty) Kiwg;go brYj;jp tUfpwhh;/ mthplk; midj;J customs duty Mtz’;fs; brYj;jp tUfpwhh;/ mthplk; midj;J customs duty Mtz’;fs; kw;w mYtyf Mtz’;fs; midj;Jk; Kiwahf cs;sd/ mjw;F Kiwg;go chpkk; itj;J cs;shh;/

,Jtiu ,wf;Fkjp bra;j vyy; h bghUl;fSf;Fk; customs duty kw;Wk; kw;w thpfs; Kiwna brYj;jp tUfpwhh;/ ,e;jepiyapy; new;W 21?4?2006 fhiy 10/30 kzpastpy; Director of Revenue Intelligence, T.Nagar, Chennai mYtyfj;jpypUe;J 8 egh;fs; vd;Dila fzth; mYtyfj;jpy; EiHe;J mtiu moj;J Jd;g[Wj;jp m’;F mYtyfj;jpy; ,Ue;J midj;J

Mtz’;fisa[k; vLj;J brd;W tpl;ldh;/ ,ut[ mjhtJ (21?4?2006) 8 kzpastpy; vd; fzth; me;j mYtyfj;jpypUe;J bjhiyngrpapy; bjhlh;g[ bfhz;L ,wf;Fkjp rk;ge;jkhd fzf;Ffis nfl;Lk; kw;Wk; eP rk;ghjpj;j gzk; vy;yhk; v’;F cs;sJ vd;W nfl;L vd;W moj;J Jd;g[Wj;jp btw;W bts;is ngg;gh;fspy; ifbaGj;J th’;Ftjhft[k; vd;ida[k; ,e;j tHf;fpy; nrh;j;J tpLtjhft[k; (fPjh) kpul;Ltjhf Twpdhh;/ clnd ehd; vdf;F bjhpe;j cah;ePjpkd;w tHf;fwp”h;fs; S.jkpHurd; kw;Wk; utpre;jpud; mth;fsplk; ,Jgw;wp Twpndd;/ mth;fs; fhiy DRI office brd;W ghh;g;gjhf brhd;dhh;/ gpwF ,d;W kjpak; 1/00 kzpastpy; DRI brd;W ghh;j;jjhft[k;. mtiu ,ut[ 8/00 kzpf;F vGk;g{h; ePjpkd;wj;jpy; hpkhz;l; bra;ag; nghtjhft[k; Twpdhh;fs;/ mjw;fpilapy; vd; fztiu “Alsa Mall” mYtyfj;jpy; 8 egh;fs; DRI office ypUe;J miHj;J te;J mYtyf CHpah;fs; Kd;g[ moj;J Jd;g[Wj;jpdhh;fs;/ gpwF 4 kzpastpy; (khiy) vd;’ tPl;ow;F bfhz;L te;J vd; Kd; moj;J Jd;g[Wj;jp eP’;fs; ,e;j ,wf;Fkjpapy; rk;ghjpj;j gzj;ij xG’;fhf bfhLj;JtpL’;fs;

Fw;wj;ij xg;g[f; bfhs;S’;fs; ,y;iybad;why; c’;fs; kidtpia (fPjh) tHf;fpy; nrh;g;ngd; vd;W re;jpunrfud; ghyfpUc&;zd; kw;Wk; 6 DRI mYtyh;fs; vd;’fztiu vd; tPl;oy; nky; cs;s bkhl;il khof;F miHj;J brd;W moj;J cijj;jdh;/ ehd; jLf;f brd;w nghJ re;jpunrfud; vd;w mYtyh; vd;id fPnH js;sptpl;L vd; fztiu cijj;J bkhl;il khoapypUe;J fPnH js;sp tpl;ldh;/ ehd; gjwpg; ngha; fPnH te;J ghh;j;jbghGJ vd; fzth; kz;il cile;J K:r;rp ngr;rp ,y;yhky; ,uj;j bts;sj;jpy; fple;jhh;/ ehd; mGJ rj;jk; nghl;nld;/ mg;bghGJ m’;fpUe;j DRI mYtyh;fs; m’;fpUe;J Xotpl;ldh;/ ehd; vd; ikj;Jdh; enue;jpuFkhh; xU Ml;nlhtpy; rj;jpaehuhazd; (vd; fztiu) Vw;wpf; bfhz;L mUfpYs;s M.R.Hospital bfhz;L brd;nwhk;/ gpwF m’;fpUe;J fPH;ghf;fk; muR bghJ kUj;Jtkidf; bfhz;L nghf brhd;dhh;fs;/ vd; fztiu fPH;ghf;fk; bghJ kUj;Jtkidf;F bfhz;L brd;wt[ld; m’;Fs;s kUj;Jth;fs; mth; ,we;Jtpl;ljhf Twpdhh;fs;/

Mfnt jh’;fs; rK:fk; nkw;go rk;gtk; Fwpj;J vd; fztiu bfhiy bra;j re;jpunrfud;. ghyfpUc&;zd; kw;Wk; 6 DRI mYtyh;fs; kPJ jf;f eltof;if vLj;J vdf;F ePjp

tH’;Fk;go jhH;ika[ld; nfl;Lf;bfhs;fpnwd;/

,g;gof;F j’;fs; cz;ika[s;s xk; (fPjh rj;aehuhazd;)

The FIR filed by the SIO records thus:

FIRST INFORMATION REPORT

(Under Section 154 Cr.P.C.)

1.District Annanagar     PS. K3 Aminjikarai                     Year

2006

FIR No.409/06 Date:22.04.06 2.Act Cr.P.C. Sections 176 Cr.PC

3(a) Occurrence of Offence Date: 22.04.06 Time:17.30

  (b) Information received at PS Date 22.04.07 Time: 19.00

4.Type of Information: Written

5.Place of occurrence: (a) Distance and Direction from PS : ½ Km, south

   (b) 9E, New Street, Ayyavoo Colony, II floor, Chennai-29.

6.Complainant / Informant (a) R.Arun Singh

• Occupation Senior Intelligence Officer
• Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, 25, Gopalakrishna Iyer Road, T.Nagar, Chennai-17.

7.Details of known (suspected / Unknown accused with full

particulars

  Deceased: Shri K.Sathayanarayana.

8.Reasons for delay in reporting by the complainant/informant: No delay 12.FIR Contents

Submitted:

Received the complaint on 22.04.06 at 19.00 hrs from

Mr.R.Arun Singh, Senior Intelligence officer, Directorate of

Revenue Intelligence, 25, Gopalakrishna Iyer road, T.Nagar,

Chennai-17 which runs as follows. From R.Arun Singh, Senior

Intelligence Officer, 25, Gopalakrishna Iyer road, T.Nagar,

Chennai-17. To The Inspector of Police, Aminjikarai Police Station,

Aminjikarai, Chennai. Sir, based on specific information that

M/s.V.R.Marketing (M) SDN BHD and its sister concern M/s.Green

Panel Boards are engaged in the under invoicing in the supply of

MDF boards and plain particle boards from Malaysia to various Indian importers. This Directorate initiated investigations under the customs Act 1962. The office premises of M/s V.R.Marketing (M) SDN BHD Chennai was searched on 21.04.06 and some incriminating documents in connection with the said under invoicing were recovered under Mahazar dated 21.04.06. Summons were issued to shri K.Sathayanarayana counting Manager of M/s V.R.Marketing (M) SDN BHD Chennai and his statement was recorded on the same day. Subsequently another summons dated 21.04.06 was issued to shri K.Sathyanarayana under section 108 of the Customs Act 1962 for his appearance on 22.04.05 at 10 AM. Shri K.Sathyanarayana did not turn up for enquiry at 10 AM. Instead he came to office at 12.00 hrs on 22.04.06. Then the DRI officers informed Shri.K.Sathyanarayana that they wanted to search his residential premises situated at No.9 E II floor, New street, Ayyavoo Colony, Aminjikarai, Chennai based on the search authorisation issued by the Assistant Director, DRI, Chennai under section 105 of the Customs Act, 1962. Then Shri K.Sathyanarayana accompanied the DRI officers for the search of his residential premises. The officers started from office at 16.00 hrs. Then the officers called for the two independent witnesses and entered the residential premises at 17.00 hrs. During the time of officers entry Shri K.Sathyanarayana’s, mother father and his brother-in-law was available. The officers showed them the said search warrant and explained to them about the purpose of their visit. During that time shri.K.Sathyanarayana went out from the house. Immediately his mother, father and brother-in-law followed him. The officers then came out of the said house and found that Shri.K.Sathyanarayana fell down from immediately the officers came down and by that time shri.K.Sathyanarayana was taken in an auto by his parents and brother-in-law. The said incident occurred around 17.30 hrs on 22.04.06. The Independent witnesses present were

1.Shri.V.Balasubramaniam son of Shri.R.Venkatesan and 2.Shri N.Sekar s/o, shri.K.Natarajan. The officers who were presented were 1.shri.Sushan Varghese, Senior Intelligence Officer, 2.V.Ramakrishnan Intelligence Officer 3.Smt.Nalini Rajam, Intelligence Officer, 4.Shri Chandrasekar IO, 5.Shri.S.Sugumar suresh IO, 6.Shri.V.Srirm, IO, 7.Shri.Girish IO, of DRI Chennai. Latter we came to know that Shri.Sathyanarayana expired. This complaint submitted for necessary action.

Sd. R.ARUN SINGH. The above complaint was received on 22.04.06 at 19.00 hrs and registered a case in K3 Aminjikarai P.S. Cr.No.409/06 u/s 176 CRPC and the original FIR along with original complaint was sent to the P.A. Collector (Gen) Chennai collectorate and the copy of the FIRs sent to the officers concerned.

Sd.,22.04.06

Sd., 22.04.06   Signature of the officer/

Signature of Complainant   Incharge Police Station

         R.ArunSingh    M.Kumaravelu

Inspector of Police L&O

54. There is no mention of the complaint filed by the petitioner in the writ affidavit and she, in fact, disavows the same in full. There have been some contradictions that arise on a comparison between the complaint and the other pleadings as noted in the preceding paragraphs of this order (see paragraphs 33 to 45). That apart, the presence of the petitioner at the residential premises at the time of search on 22.04.2006 is itself uncertain as the FIR filed by the Officer does not mention her presence there. Neither does the petitioner, in the complaint filed by her.
55. However, the petitioner avers that she was in the premises at that time, making much of the fact that the FIR omits reference to her. These contradictions cannot be brushed aside but have to account for something, and to my mind they are a pointer to the fact that the petitioner’s version is not to be taken totally at face value.
56. Though the petitioner’s presence, as such, might not be of any consequence to decide the modus operandi of her husband’s demise, her conduct, particularly the integrity in facts as projected by her, is critical as to the impression it creates and the weightage that one would attribute to the version that she presents.
57. The disavowal by her, of the complaint filed on 22.04.2004, cannot be accepted without demur and unquestioningly by the Court. No doubt the petitioner might have been shaken and traumatised by the incidents of 21 and 22.04.2006. However there was no need for the names of Thamizharasan and Ravichandran to figure in the complaint if they had not been present with the petitioner and accompanied her to the station. The consequential inference that this Court is led to is that the petitioner’s statements cannot be taken as a faithful depiction of the facts and of the events commencing 21.04.2006.
58. The Statement of Panchayatdhars dated 23.04.2006 reads thus:

g    “;rhaj;jhh; fUj;J

fhy”;brd;w jpU/rj;a ehuhazdd; vd;gtu; v’;fSf;F ed;whf bjhpa[k; mth; kpft[k; ijh;arhyp rK:f nritfs; bra;J te;Js;shh;/ Fwpg;gpl;l Kfthpapy; ,we;j egh; 7 Mz;Lfshf trpj;J te;Js;shh;/ mtUf;F ,iw gf;jp epiwa cz;L/ nkYk; jpUtz;zhkiyf;F brd;W fphptyk; bra;tij tHf;fkhf bfhz;lth;/ ve;jtpj bfl;l Fz’;fSk; gHf;f’;fisa[k; bfhs;shjth;/ mg;gFjpapy; bghJ bjhz;Lfis brayhsuhf ,Ue;J bra;J teJ;s;shh;/ tprhuizapd; nghJ tprhuiz bra;j D.R.I mjpfhhpfshy; moj;J cijj;J bfhLik bra;ag;gl;l fhuzj;jpdhYk; nkYk; ,wf;Fkjp bra;J fpilj;j tUkhdj;ij xG’;fhf bfhLf;ft[k/; ,y;iy vd;why; mtuJ kidtp fPjhit ,t;tHf;fpy; Fw;wthspahf nrh;j;J tpLtjhft[k; nkYk; mtiu bkhl;il khof;F me;j mYtyh;fs; bfhz;L brd;W moj;J cijj;jhft[k; kidtp jLj;jnghJ re;jpunrfh; vd;w mjpfhhp kidtpia js;sptpl;L rj;aehuhaziz vl;o cijj;jhy; mth; bkhl;il khoapypUe;J fPnH tpGe;jjhft[k; v’;fis tPl;ow;F te;J jd; fztiu kUj;Jtkidf;F bfhz;L bry;y mty; kidtp v’;fsplk; bjhiyngrp Ky: k; bjhptpj;jhh;/ eh’;fs; m’;F brd;wnghJ mth; ,uj;j bts;sj;jpy; ,Ue;jhh;/ mtiu jdpahh; kUj;Jtkidf;F bfhz;L brd;nwhk;/ me;j kUj;Jtkidapy; KMC f;F bfhz;L bry;y nfhhpdh;/ nf/vk;/rp kUj;Jtkidf;F bfhz;L brd;w nghJ m’;F kUj;Jth; ghpnrhjpj;J mth; ,we;Jtpl;ljhf bra;jp jh’;f Koahj bfhLikahYk; kw;Wk; moj;J cijj;J rpj;utij bra;jjhYk; nkny bkhl;il khoapypUe;J jpU/re;jpunrfh; vd;w mYtyh; vl;o cijj;jjhYk; fPnH tpGe;J ,we;J tpl;lhh;/ jpU/rj;jpaehuazd; ,we;jjw;F KG bghWg;g[ nkw;Fwpg;gpl;l DRI mYtyh;fs; jhd; fhuzk; vd jdpj;jdpahft[k; xl;L bkhj;jkhft[k; bjhptpj;Jf; bfhs;fpnwhk;/

-goj;Jg;ghh;j;njhk; – brhd;dgo ,Ue;jJ-

1.Sd.,

(DR.ARJUN THOMAS) Age.43/M

S/o. Late Mr.Bala Subramaniam,

286 (B) New Street, Ayyavoo Naidu Colony, Aminjikarai, Chennai-79.

2.Sd., 23.04.06 (K.Ravanan)

3.Sd., 23/04/06

4.Sd., 23/04/06

R.Babu

5.Sd., 23/04/2006

-vd; Kd;dpiyapy;-

Sd.,

Sub Divisional Magistrate   and District Backward Classes and Minorities Welfare Officer 59.  The statement of the Panchayatdars records the possibility that the petitioners’ husband was being harassed by the respondent officials and that such harassment was what eventually led to his demise.  The relevant portion of the report of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate dated 12.12.2006 reads thus:

nkYk; jpU/rj;jpaehuhazdpd; je;ijahh; mspj;j thf;FK:yj;jpYk; mogl;Lf; fple;j jpU/rj;jpaehuhazid Ml;nlh oiuth; cjtpa[ld; mUfpYs;s kUj;Jtkidf;F miHj;Jr; brd;wjhf Twpa[s;shnu jtpu mg;nghJ jdJ kUkfs; (jpUkjp/ fPjh rj;jpaehuhazd;) jdJ kfd; mUfpy; ,Ue;jjhf VJk; bjhptpf;ftpy;iy/ jhahh; jdJ thf;FK:yj;jpy; jdJ kUkfs; (jpUkjp/ fPjh rj;jpaehuhazd;) jdJ kfd; mUfpy; ,Ue;jjhf VJk; bjhptpf;ftpy;iy/ vdnt jpUkjp/ fPjh rj;jpaehuhazd; mspj;j thf;FK:yj;jpid ntW rhl;rpa’;fs; VJk; ,y;yhjjhy; (uj;j rk;ge;jk; kw;Wk; uj;j rk;ge;jkpy;yhj) KGikahf Vw;gjw;F Mjhu’;fs; ,y;iy/ jpU/ rj;jpaehuhazd; mog;gl;L ,we;jhh; vd;gjw;F rhl;rpa’;fs; ,Ue;jnghjpYk;. ,th; ,wg;gpw;F ahh; fhuzk; vd mWjpapl;Lf; Tw ,aytpy;iy/ ,Ug;gpDk; tUtha; g[ydha;t[j; Jiw mjpfhhpfs; jpU/ rj;jpaehuhazid nrhjidapl bry;ytpy;iy vd;whYk; jpU/ rj;jpaehuhazd; tPl;il nrhjidapl brd;wpUf;fpwhh;fs;/ mtUila tPl;il nrhjidapl vl;L mYtyh;fs; xd;W nrh;e;J rh;r; thuz;oy; brd;wpUf;fpwhh;fs;/ mtuJ tPl;il nrhjidapLk; nghJ jpU/ rj;jpa ehuhazd; KG xj;JiHg;g[ mspj;jjhYk;. cz;ikia xg;g[f; bfhz;ljhYk;. mth; tPl;il nrhjidapLk; nghnj mth; tPl;il tpl;L btspna brd;wnghJ mtiu gpd; bjhlutpy;iy vd;Wk; mth; KG Rje;jpukhf ,Ue;jhh; vd;Wk; jdpkdpj chpikia mjpfhhpfshfpa jh’;fs; fl;Lg;gLj;jtpy;iy vd;Wk; bjhptpj;Js;sdh;/ vl;L tUtha;j;Jiw mjpfhhpfs; jpU/ rj;jpaehuhazdpd; tPl;il nrhjidapLk; nghJ rw;W nkYk; ftdkhf ,Ue;jpUe;jhy; xU nfhof;F nky; thp Va;g;g[ bra;jthpd; tPl;ow;F brd;W nrhjidapl brd;wth;fs; ,th;fs; nrhjid Koa[k; tiu. ,e;j epfH;tpw;F ikakhd jpU/ rj;jpaehuhazid mth; tPl;ow;F btspna jd;dpr;irahf bry;tij mDkjpf;fhky; ,Ue;jpUe;jhy;. ,e;j ,wg;g[ ,th;fs; tPl;il nrhjidapLk; nghJ Vw;gl;oUg;gij jtph;j;jpUf;fyhk;/ ,jd; K:yk; jpU/ rj;jpaehuhazdpd; tPl;ow;F nrhjidf;Fr; brd;w tUtha;j;Jiw g[ydha;t[ mjpfhhpfs; (names removed in the interest of brevity as they are

figured elsewhere) Mfpa 8 mYtyh;fs; $hf;fpuij ,y;yhkYk; nkYk; rw;W ftdkhf ,Ue;J jpU/ rj;jpaehuhazid fz;fhzpj;jpUe;jhy; ,e;j ,wg;g[ tPl;oy; nrhjid bra;a[k; nghJ Vw;gl;oUf;f tha;g;gpy;iy vd;gjhy;. jpU/ rj;jpaehuhazd; ,wg;g[f;F ,e;j mstpw;F mth;fs; bghWg;ghthh;fs; vd bjhptpj;Jf; bfhs;sg;gLfpwJ/

60. In light of the above report forwarded through District Collector and the recommendations of the latter, R4 recommends action against the officers and the communication to the DRI reads thus:

PUBLIC (LAW & ORDER-E) DEPT.

                                                                                           SECRETARIAT,

CHENNAI-9.

Letter No.2854/L&O-E/2008-2, Dated 18.02.2009.

From

Thiru.D.Jothi Jagarajan, I.A.S., Secretary to Government.

To

The Director,

Directorate of Revenue Intelligence,

D Block, 7^th Floor,

Indraprasda Bhavan,

Indraprasda Estate,

New Delhi – 110 002. (w.e)

Sir,

Sub: Law and Order – Chennai District – Death of Thiru

Sathiyanarayanan on 22.04.2006 at the time of house search by the officials of Directorate of Revenue Intelligence – Police Standing Order Enquiry conducted – Follow up action – Regarding.

Ref: From the Collector of Chennai district Letter No.A5/23782/2006, dated 2.7.2007.

I am directed to invite attention to the reference cited. (Copy enclosed)

2. On 22.04.2006 a raid was conducted by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence officials of Chennai Zone Unit at the residence of one Thiru Sathiyanarayanan at No.9E, New Street, Ayyavoo Naidu Colony, Aminjikarai, Chennai-29. While conducting the raid the said Thiru Sathiyanarayanan fell down from the open trace of his residence on 22.4.2006 and he was taken to Chennai Kilpauk Medical Hospital for treatment. After examining, the Doctor has declared him as brought dead. In this connection, a case was registered in Cr.No.409/2006 u/s 176 Cr.P.C in the K3, Aminjikarai Police Station and a Magisterial

Enquiry by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate and District Backward Classes and Minorities Welfare Officer, Chennai has been conducted as per the provisions of Police Standing Order. The Enquiry Officer has concluded that the death of Thiru Sathiyanarayanan was due to mental and physical torture inflicted by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence officials. A copy of the enquiry report of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate is enclosed for ready reference. The Collector of Chennai District has agreed with the findings of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate and recommended to the Government to initiate Departmental action against the erred Revenue Intelligence officials.

3. The Government, after careful examination of the enquiry report and the recommendation of the Collector of Chennai, have agreed with the findings of the enquiry officer that guidelines and procedure while conducting raid at the premises of the deceased have not been scrupulously followed by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence Officials and hence they were responsible for contributory negligence in the death of the deceased. Accordingly the Government is of the view that severe departmental action may be initiated against the following Directorate of Revenue Intelligence Officials who were part of the team who conducted raid at the residence of the deceased Sathiyanarayanan.
   1. R.Arun Singh (Senior Vigilance Officer)
   2. Susan Vargesee (Senior Vigilance Officer)
   3. Nalini Rajan (Intelligence Officer)
   4. Sukumar suresh (Intelligence Officer)
   5. Ramakrishnan (Intelligence Officer)
   6. Girish (Intelligence Officer)
   7. Chandrasekar (Intelligence Officer)
   8. Ram (Intelligence Officer)

4.I am therefore, directed to request that departmental action against the above mentioned erred officials of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Chennai Zone Unit may be taken as per the decision of the Government and to intimate the result of the departmental action to the Government early.

5. The receipt of the letter may kindly be acknowledged.

Yours faithfully,

for Secretary to Government T.Joseph Besky, Section Officer.

Copy to

The District Collector, Chennai District.

61. The conclusions of the Panchayatdhars and the sub-divisional Magistrate are to the effect that the officials had harassed the petitioners husband. Based on these reports, R4 has attributed contributory negligence on the part of the officers in connection with the demise of the petitioner’s husband. He goes one step ahead, also stating that the officers had not followed proper procedure and guidelines while conducting the raid in the premises in question.
62. It is entirely possible and probable that the officers would have been rough in their approach to the petitioner’s husband in the course of the search proceedings. However, which such an approach is to be deprecated, there is nothing to indicate that the guidelines for conduct of searches has been breached in any way or that the officers had resorted to violence or physical abuse.
63. The stipulations for issuance of warrant, summons, panchas and the maintenance of documents in this regard, to the extent to which they have been furnished before the Court, do not indicate any omission or irregularity and none have been pointed out by the petitioner as well. There is no basis for the observation in the proceedings of the R4 dated 18.02.2009 that proper procedure and guidelines have not been followed.
64. This Court has, in the discussion, preceding this conclusion noted various inconsistenciess in the statement of the petitioner. It thus falls outside of the realm of this Court, sitting in wirt jurisdiction, to render an unequivocal and categoric finding in the affirmative, in regard to the cause of death of the petitioner’s husband.  This would have been an appropriate matter for the attention of the civil Courts with necessary infrastructure to conduct an indepth enquiry into evidences including examination of witnesses.  The submissions of the petitioner on this score are thus rejected.
65. The issues that arise for the Court’s consideration are:

• Whether the Writ Petition is at all maintainable in light of the alleged sequence of events relating to the filing of the Criminal Original Petition and withdrawal thereof by this petitioner.
• Whether illegal custody of her husband in the hands of the customs officials, has been established by the petitioner.
• Whether death of her husband in the hands of the customs

officials, has been established by the petitioner.

• Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation of a sum of

Rs.50.00 lakhs or any compensation at all.

• Whether there should be any direction to the Customs Department to take suitable action as against the officers referred to in recommendations of R4 under letter dated 18.02.2009.

66. The first issue has been decided by me after a detailed discussion at paragraphs 33 to 45. The second and third issues of alleged illegal custody and death of the petitioner’s husband in the hands of the petitioner’s husband have been discussed and answered at paragraphs 48 to 51 and 53 to 64 above

respectively, adverse to the petitioner.

67. The third issue relates to the prayer for compensation. In Sube Singh v. State of Haryana and others^[1], the Court touched upon the payment of compensation as a public law remedy for violation of fundamental rights. However, they concluded, based on the facts before them, that there was no clear or incontrovertible evidences in regard to the allegation of custodial torture in that case.
68. They held that where there is no independent witness of such torture or illegal custody, then, the Courts must not be persuaded to intervene in such cases. In paragraph 45, their observations are:

‘45.Cases where violation of Article 21 involving

custodial death or torture is established or is incontrovertible stand on a different footing when compared to cases where such violation is doubtful or not established. Where there is no independent evidence of custodial torture and where there is neither medical evidence about any injury or disability, resulting from custodial torture, nor any mark/scar, it may not be prudent to accept claims of human rights violation, by persons having criminal records in a routine manner for awarding compensation. That may open the floodgates for false claims, either to mulct money from the State or as to prevent or thwart further investigation. The courts should, therefore, while zealously protecting the fundamental rights of those who are illegally detained or subjected to custodial violence, should also stand guard against false, motivated and frivolous claims in the interests of the society and to enable the police to discharge their duties fearlessly and effectively. While custodial torture is not infrequent, it should be borne in mind that every arrest and detention does not lead to custodial torture.’

69. No medical report of any injury or disability was produced in that case. The grievance of the petitioner and his relatives were targeting different officers in different Stations at different point in time and importantly were found to be exaggerated and false. For those reasons, the claim for compensation was rejected.
70. There is thus, a primary requirement for the petitioner, in seeking mandamus for compensation, to premise the prayer on facts that are categoric and clear. No doubt, disputes will be raised by the respondents in regard to the version of events, as put forth by the petitioners. However, it is for the Courts to reconcile such differences and in doing so, the Court must be left with the impression that the claim of the petitioner is a genuine one, uncoloured by any inconsistencies or contradictions.
71. The death of the petitioner’s husband is a fact that has been established and which is denied by none of the parties before me. The fact is that the petitioner’s husband did fall to his death from the terrace of the premises in question. However, there is nothing to clinch the petitioner’s version of events and conclusively conclude that his death was caused, or can be attributed, to the respondents.
72. Even in such circumstances, this Court may have been persuaded to grant some measure of the benefit of doubt to the petitioner IF her narration of events had been found credible, but this is found wanting and has not inspired this Court to invoke its extraordinary jurisdiction to award compensation.
73. The reliance of the petitioner on the decision in Kabali @

Kabalesswaran v. State of Tamil Nadu, rep. by its Secretary to Government, Home Department, Fort St. George, Chennai 600 009 and others^[2], is of no assistance to the petitioner as the facts in that case had found acceptance by the Court in accepting that petitioner’s prayer. The situation is not in parimeteria in this case.

74. This Writ Petition is dismissed as is the connected miscellaneous petition. However, there will be no order as to costs.

 21.06.2023

Index : Yes

Speaking Order

Neutral citation : Yes

Sl

To

1.The Union of India,

Rep by its Secretary to Government,    Department of Revenue & Intelligence,    New Delhi.

2.The Director,

Directorate of Revenue Intelligence,

Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue)

Government of India,

7^th Floor, D-Block,

Indraprasatha Bhawan,    Indraprasatha Estate,    New Delhi.

3.Senior Intelligence Officer,

Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue)

O/o, Director of Revenue Intelligence,    No.25, Gopala Krishna (Iyer) Road    T.Nagar, Chennai-600 017.

4.The Government of Tamilnadu

Rep by Secretary to Government,    Public (Law & order-E) Department,    Secretariat, Chennai-9.

DR.ANITA SUMANTH, J.

Sl

WP.No.23868 of 2012 and

MP.No.1 of 2013

21.06.2023

[1] [(2006) 3 SCC 178]

[2] [2006-3-L.W.81]